Preventive detention representations must be decided promptly and independently; unexplained delay vitiated the detention order.

In preventive detention matters, each competent authority must consider the detenu's representation independently and with expedition; unexplained delay in dealing with the representation vitiates the detention. The record showed delayed movement and consideration of the file by both the detaining authority and the State Government, and neither authority gave a satisfactory explanation for the lapse. The delay was treated as reflecting lack of due diligence and non-application of mind, and the detention order was quashed as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated by unexplained delay in disposing of the detenu's representations by the detaining authority and the State Government.

Analysis: The representations had to be considered independently by both the detaining authority and the State Government. The record showed delay in the movement and consideration of the file, and the authorities did not satisfactorily explain why the representations were not dealt with promptly. The detaining authority took several days after receipt of the sponsoring authority's comments, while the State authority also did not act with the promptness expected in preventive detention matters. The delay reflected lack of due diligence and non-application of mind in processing the representations.

Conclusion: The detention order was held unsustainable and was quashed for unexplained delay in disposal of the representations.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, representations must be considered with expedition by each competent authority independently, and unexplained delay in such consideration vitiates the detention.

---